A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Build it and they won't come



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #451  
Old October 13th 17, 04:09 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default Build it and they won't come

On 2017-10-12 06:57, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 11:52:35 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-10-11 10:46, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 9:47:14 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
snip

But you use the word "be obliged". Be obligated by who?


By the law. Just like if you build a structure that impedes
your neighbor's access to his house you are obliged to
accommodate him.

A brilliant lawyer I know litigated that issue:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rex-b...b_3861490.html




https://www.leagle.com/decision/19951583891p2d69211571

You need a law to start with, however. Joerg needs to go to his
legislature. It's not a long ride to Sacramento -- and mostly on
the American River Trail.


We simply vote with our feet (the pedaling ones). Some communities
do nothing. Others where the leaders are smart require any new
road construction to have bicycling facilities. Folsom is an
example. Therefore, I spend more of my money in such communities
than in the ones without smart leaders. Many others think the same
way and the results are mostly felt by restaurants and pubs. For me
it's also hardware stores and such.


There is a semi-major road near us that just did a really odd thing.
They converted the road from a four lane barrier divided road to a
two lane road with the CENTER LANES turned into a cross-hatch white
line. This is a commonly used bicycle route and they did not add a
bicycle lane.


Cyclists ride in the center? That doesn't make much sense. Though I
often have to do that for left turns out of parking lots on some busy
four-lane roads during rush hour because my bikes and legs can't
accelerate like a Porsche. So I enter the "suicide lane" and ride there
until the two lanes in my direction clear up enough.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Ads
  #452  
Old October 13th 17, 04:13 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Build it and they won't come

On 10/13/2017 2:16 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 00:46:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/13/2017 12:15 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:59:37 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Big SNIP

The types of guns I'm thinking of are rapid fire (say, more than one round
per second) and/or high capacity (say, more than 20 rounds), plus
handguns. Yes, I understand that a very few handguns are used for
hunting, but that's a very small percentage of handgun use.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I can fire a bolt action Lee-Enfield rifle at 10 rounds per 10 seconds. The standard magazine capacity for that rifle is 10 rounds. If I wanted to I could get another magazine or two forit, cut those magazines apart and then weld the three of them together to form a 30 rounds capacity magazine. That would allow me to fire 30 rounds in 30 seconds. If I wanted more accurate aimed fire I could support the fore-end of the rifle on a sand bag.


I'm not saying it's impossible to do what you claim. I'm saying it
shouldn't be legal. Why would you want to do that anyway? Is it just in
case a gaggle of U.S.ian gun nuts charges over the border to the north?


Actually, at close range a shotgun with a wide spread of shiot can be better than a rifle since the shotgun can hit more than one person with each shot fired.

Watch a video of the Big Sandy Shoot and marvel at the number of people with .30 caliber General Purpose Machine Guns, .50 caliber heavy machine guns, 7.62mm Electric Gatling-type machine guns, 37mm anti-tank cannons, etcetera. One guy even had a 76mm Hellcat tank destroyer with a working 76mm main gun. All those weapons had the primary purpose of killing people. A lot of people,dare I say most people with rapid-fire high-rounds capacity shoot for fun.


Yes, a lot of people enjoy pretending to be soldiers. But I don't see
that society needs to put up with those juvenile pretend games if doing
so causes or aids thousands of murders.

Btw, when hunting if you wound an animal, 5 seconds is a long time and you'd better be really good at tracking because other wise that animal will be long gone by the time you're ready to take that second shot. If it's an large angry wounded animal that charges you them your 5 seconds delay getting off a second shot could have you either dead or severely injured.


As I said, if people want to discuss specific time limits for subsequent
rounds, I'm happy to do so. I'm sure Joerg's life has been saved only by
his ability to get a second round into a mountain lion really quickly.
But I bet fast firepower causes far more deaths than it prevents.

BTW, I'm sure I can fire at least two shots per second with the gun in
my basement. I haven't tried, because all my practice has been for
accuracy, not speed. But a five second wait would never have
inconvenienced me.

And let's remember that "the [American] right to bear arms" was written
when nobody conceived of a gun that could accurately fire three rounds
in a minute.


Actually you are wrong. See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJMbxZ1k9NQ
3 rounds in 46 seconds or about 3.91 rounds per minute.


I've seen that video before, and had it in mind when I wrote. It's why I
included the word "accurately," which you missed.

The guy's first two shots were in the right general direction, but I
doubt they were "accurate." The third shot? There's no telling where it
went. The stock wasn't even against his shoulder when he fired.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #453  
Old October 13th 17, 04:36 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Build it and they won't come

On 10/13/2017 10:16 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/13/2017 12:15 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:59:37 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Yes, a lot of people enjoy pretending to be soldiers. But I don't see
that society needs to put up with those juvenile pretend games if
doing so causes or aids thousands of murders.


The idea behind the Second Amendment was that most citizens would
potentially *be* soldiers, although not regular troops in a standing
army. Those who disagree with the premise should argue for repeal.
Once we start repealing the Bill of Rights I'll bet there's quite a bit
of it that will be found dispensable.


The second amendment is a terrible piece of writing. My 10th grade
English teacher would have had red marks all over it, and not just for
style. Obviously, the very meaning was so unclear that serious,
intelligent and even impartial readers have disagreed over
interpretation for hundreds of years.

So don't go "slippery slope" on me. It's an amendment, and it can be
amended. Other aspects of the constitution have been amended and even
repealed. The 18th amendment seemed like a good idea. When the effects
became apparent, the 21st corrected the situation.

We're now seeing the modern results of a terribly written 2nd amendment:
a gun murder rate that eclipses any other modern industrialized country.
We should amend that amendment, and put specific, rational limits on gun
nuts.

As I said, if people want to discuss specific time limits for
subsequent rounds, I'm happy to do so. I'm sure Joerg's life has been
saved only by his ability to get a second round into a mountain lion
really quickly. But I bet fast firepower causes far more deaths than
it prevents.

BTW, I'm sure I can fire at least two shots per second with the gun in
my basement. I haven't tried, because all my practice has been for
accuracy, not speed. But a five second wait would never have
inconvenienced me.


So how do you propose to enforce the five second limit? It would seem
to outlaw essentially all repeating firearms, and almost all breech
loading single shot firearms. Most muzzle loaders would be ok, as long
as some clever ATF guy couldn't figure out how to reload in four seconds.


Again: If you don't like five seconds, we can discuss specific firing
rates.

But how to enforce? First, outlaw and buy back purpose-designed
rapid-fire guns something like what Australia did. Second, I'd be
shocked if it were impossible to design a mechanical or electronic
damper system to limit fire rates.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #454  
Old October 13th 17, 04:37 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Build it and they won't come

On 10/13/2017 10:41 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 9:46:59 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2017 12:15 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:59:37 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Big SNIP

The types of guns I'm thinking of are rapid fire (say, more than one round
per second) and/or high capacity (say, more than 20 rounds), plus
handguns. Yes, I understand that a very few handguns are used for
hunting, but that's a very small percentage of handgun use.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I can fire a bolt action Lee-Enfield rifle at 10 rounds per 10 seconds. The standard magazine capacity for that rifle is 10 rounds. If I wanted to I could get another magazine or two forit, cut those magazines apart and then weld the three of them together to form a 30 rounds capacity magazine. That would allow me to fire 30 rounds in 30 seconds. If I wanted more accurate aimed fire I could support the fore-end of the rifle on a sand bag.


I'm not saying it's impossible to do what you claim. I'm saying it
shouldn't be legal. Why would you want to do that anyway? Is it just in
case a gaggle of U.S.ian gun nuts charges over the border to the north?


Actually, at close range a shotgun with a wide spread of shiot can be better than a rifle since the shotgun can hit more than one person with each shot fired.

Watch a video of the Big Sandy Shoot and marvel at the number of people with .30 caliber General Purpose Machine Guns, .50 caliber heavy machine guns, 7.62mm Electric Gatling-type machine guns, 37mm anti-tank cannons, etcetera. One guy even had a 76mm Hellcat tank destroyer with a working 76mm main gun. All those weapons had the primary purpose of killing people. A lot of people,dare I say most people with rapid-fire high-rounds capacity shoot for fun.


Yes, a lot of people enjoy pretending to be soldiers. But I don't see
that society needs to put up with those juvenile pretend games if doing
so causes or aids thousands of murders.

Btw, when hunting if you wound an animal, 5 seconds is a long time and you'd better be really good at tracking because other wise that animal will be long gone by the time you're ready to take that se...


Frank, since you admire Canada's gun laws so much might I recommend you moving there to enjoy your complete safety?


Tom, since where you live is a crime-ridden hell hole in which you can
barely afford hot dogs, can I recommend you go first? ;-)


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #455  
Old October 13th 17, 04:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Build it and they won't come

On 10/13/2017 2:04 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 22:59:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/12/2017 9:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:59:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/12/2017 4:46 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:49:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/11/2017 9:38 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 11:29:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/11/2017 9:42 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 4:54:17 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

It seems unlikely, at best, to believe that you didn't understand the
content of the original posts between Frank and I where he commented
that punching holes in a paper target with a gun and thinking you were
a big, bad, man was childish.

I then replied "like a 60 year old guy on a CF racing bike".

I can only assume that you are interjecting your off topic remarks
deliberately. So yes, goodbye.

Walking off in a snit again John? Really, get over yourself. You're beginning to sound like Frank who denies that where the strongest guns laws are we have the highest rates of gun crimes and where the least gun laws are in effect the murder rates are insignificant.

You mean like Canada vs. the U.S.? Or like Windsor vs. Detroit? Got
numbers?

Even a casual look shows little correlation between gun ownership in
the U.S. and homicides.

Gun ownership
http://tinyurl.com/ybnxnu8x
States with Extremely High Populations of Gun Owners (more than 50%)

1. Wyoming - 59.7% Homicide rate 2.7/100,000
2. Alaska - 57.8% 8.0
3. Montana - 57.7% 3.5
4. South Dakota - 56.6% 3.7
5. West Virginia - 55.4% 3.8
6. Mississippi - 55.3% 8.7
6. Idaho - 55.3% 1.9
6. Arkansas - 55.3% 6.1
9. Alabama - 51.7% 7.2
10. North Dakota - 50.7% 2.8

States with Below Median Populations of Gun Owners

40. Delaware - 25.5% Homicide rate 6.7/100,000
41. Florida - 24.5% 5.1
42. California - 21.3% 4.8
42. Maryland - 21.3% 8.6
44. Illinois - 20.2% 5.8
45. New York - 18% 3.1
46. Connecticut - 16.7% 3.3
47. Rhode Island - 12.8% 2.7
48. Massachusetts - 12.6% 1.9
49. New Jersey - 12.3% 4.1
50. Hawaii - 6.7% 1.3

Homicide rate from
http://tinyurl.com/gp9usuy

The State with the lowest homicide rate is New Hampshire (1.1/100,000)
and gun ownership of 30%.

I've been generally aware of that data for quite a while. Digging
deeper, here is what I think it shows:

States with lower population density, and especially with a greater
percentage of their population living in rural areas, tend to have more
people who own rifles and shotguns used for hunting and "varmint"
control. They also have much less of the social stress derived from
mixed cultures in dense cities.


Whether it is lower density or whatever I'm fairly sure that the
people are the major problem area.

Well, I'm sure that's true. As I understand it, places with no people
have very little crime!
But please note: I'm strongly in favor of hunting with guns. I'm
strongly in favor of most varmint control. I'm not talking about
reducing the number of guns in general.

Instead, I'm talking about reducing (or ideally, eliminating) the number
of guns specifically designed for killing other people. Those would
include guns designed or modified to shoot rapidly and to shoot many
rounds without reloading. And to further infuriate the gun nuts, I'd be
in favor of eventually reducing the number of handguns, since almost all
of those are intended as people killers.

The problem is, as I tried to point out, is that any configuration of
a "gun" can be used to kill people. Wild Bill Hickok kill at least 8
people with a .36 caliber cap and ball revolver, which is classified
as an antique and can be legally owned by anyone today.

From what I've just read, Hickok did kill several people, during a time
when lawlessness and drunken shootings were quite common. In most cases,
he killed them as a law officer acting in self defense, although several
of those seem to be questionable. But they were almost always one-on-one
situations. I don't see that having a gun that fired only once in five
seconds would have made a difference.

In any case, "Other things can kill so don't ban guns specially designed
for killing people" seems a specious argument. We do ban other things
specially designed for killing people, and no sane person thinks it's an
attack on their second amendment rights. (Thank God the National Hand
Grenade Association isn't as flush with money as the NRA.)

So: If we could correlate the number of non-hunting guns with gun
homicide rates, I suspect we'd see much different results. I think the
number of people-killing guns correlates pretty well with the rate of
gun deaths.

But I doubt that information is out there. The NRA has successfully
purchased laws that prohibit studying gun violence too closely.

I'm not so sure about that...

Really? See
http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...nap-story.html

... as without very much effort I seem to find
a considerable amount of official data regarding shootings.

Find me the data I asked about: the correlation between the number of
guns designed specifically for killing people vs. homicide rates. The
types of guns I'm thinking of are rapid fire (say, more than one round
per second) and/or high capacity (say, more than 20 rounds), plus
handguns. Yes, I understand that a very few handguns are used for
hunting, but that's a very small percentage of handgun use.

Ah Frank, now you are down to one shot per second :-)

But more to the point, why should I - a law abiding citizen - be
deprived of my right to use a pistol to shoot deer with? Or woodchucks
for that matter? To my personal knowledge no one in my family has shot
a human for five generations.


Why should you be deprived of that "right"? For the same reason that an
avid admirer of explosives of all kinds is not allowed to possess hand
grenades. Heck, it's getting really difficult to find a place to buy C-4
plastic explosive material, just because of the oppressive and unjust
anti-explosive laws!

(Fun fact: I have a friend who bought some C-4 from a local guy as part
of a sting operation, which sent the seller to prison. After his
release, in a completely unrelated event, I got to meet the guy with the
prison time. He remarked at one time "These things are so strong you
couldn't even blow them up!" My friend said "Yep. He would know.")

Getting back to the point: Why should handguns, grenades and explosives
and rapid-fire people killers be highly controlled? It's a matter of
benefits vs. detriments. Regarding the handgun, the benefit is some dude
gets to brag "I took that buck with a handgun!" (IOW "Wow, I am highly
skilled and manly!") the detriment is thousands of handgun deaths per
year, far more per capita than any other advanced westernized country.
The detriment is far greater than the benefit.
It might also be noted that of the large "gun death" numbers quoted in
many articles about the dangers of gun ownership, that for the past 35
years (as of 2015) the majority of the "gun deaths" have been suicide.


Yes, depending on the article. Some data counts gun deaths, some data
counts homicides.

I suppose some might say "If someone wants to shoot themselves, that's
no problem." But society as a whole tends to disagree. Much work is done
to prevent suicide. Lots of money is spent on 911 operator training,
counseling centers, psychiatry and psychology etc. A lot of that is
employed after a failed suicide attempt, and the near-victims are often
glad they got a second chance to avoid the "permanent solution to a
temporary problem." But with guns, there usually is no second chance.


You appear to keep ignoring my point(s) that none of your suggestions,
i.,e. 5 seconds between rounds, big magazines,etc., are at all
practical.


What are the laws where you're living?

What are the laws in Britain, Ireland, France, Germany, etc.?

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-w...ere-this-36131

As for suicides, can you think of any liberty greater then
the liberty to kill yourself?


Well, if you want to argue about suicide rights and the termination of
all anti-suicide programs, perhaps you should put it in a different thread.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #457  
Old October 13th 17, 04:56 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Build it and they won't come

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 8:36:12 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2017 10:16 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/13/2017 12:15 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:59:37 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Yes, a lot of people enjoy pretending to be soldiers. But I don't see
that society needs to put up with those juvenile pretend games if
doing so causes or aids thousands of murders.


The idea behind the Second Amendment was that most citizens would
potentially *be* soldiers, although not regular troops in a standing
army. Those who disagree with the premise should argue for repeal.
Once we start repealing the Bill of Rights I'll bet there's quite a bit
of it that will be found dispensable.


The second amendment is a terrible piece of writing. My 10th grade
English teacher would have had red marks all over it, and not just for
style. Obviously, the very meaning was so unclear that serious,
intelligent and even impartial readers have disagreed over
interpretation for hundreds of years.

So don't go "slippery slope" on me. It's an amendment, and it can be
amended. Other aspects of the constitution have been amended and even
repealed. The 18th amendment seemed like a good idea. When the effects
became apparent, the 21st corrected the situation.

We're now seeing the modern results of a terribly written 2nd amendment:
a gun murder rate that eclipses any other modern industrialized country.
We should amend that amendment, and put specific, rational limits on gun
nuts.

As I said, if people want to discuss specific time limits for
subsequent rounds, I'm happy to do so. I'm sure Joerg's life has been
saved only by his ability to get a second round into a mountain lion
really quickly. But I bet fast firepower causes far more deaths than
it prevents.

BTW, I'm sure I can fire at least two shot...


Leave it to Frank to have an English teacher who could find fault with the writing of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.
  #458  
Old October 13th 17, 04:57 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Build it and they won't come

On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 8:36:12 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2017 10:16 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/13/2017 12:15 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:59:37 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Yes, a lot of people enjoy pretending to be soldiers. But I don't see
that society needs to put up with those juvenile pretend games if
doing so causes or aids thousands of murders.


The idea behind the Second Amendment was that most citizens would
potentially *be* soldiers, although not regular troops in a standing
army. Those who disagree with the premise should argue for repeal.
Once we start repealing the Bill of Rights I'll bet there's quite a bit
of it that will be found dispensable.


The second amendment is a terrible piece of writing. My 10th grade
English teacher would have had red marks all over it, and not just for
style. Obviously, the very meaning was so unclear that serious,
intelligent and even impartial readers have disagreed over
interpretation for hundreds of years.

So don't go "slippery slope" on me. It's an amendment, and it can be
amended. Other aspects of the constitution have been amended and even
repealed. The 18th amendment seemed like a good idea. When the effects
became apparent, the 21st corrected the situation.

We're now seeing the modern results of a terribly written 2nd amendment:
a gun murder rate that eclipses any other modern industrialized country.
We should amend that amendment, and put specific, rational limits on gun
nuts.

As I said, if people want to discuss specific time limits for
subsequent rounds, I'm happy to do so. I'm sure Joerg's life has been
saved only by his ability to get a second round into a mountain lion
really quickly. But I bet fast firepower causes far more deaths than
it prevents.

BTW, I'm sure I can fire at least two ...


You still haven't told us why the states with the strongest gun control laws have the highest rates of murder and the states with NO laws have the lowest. But I'm sure you can sidestep that yet again.
  #460  
Old October 13th 17, 05:20 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Build it and they won't come

On 10/13/2017 10:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2017 10:16 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/13/2017 12:15 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:59:37 PM UTC-4, Frank
Krygowski wrote:


Yes, a lot of people enjoy pretending to be soldiers. But
I don't see
that society needs to put up with those juvenile pretend
games if
doing so causes or aids thousands of murders.


The idea behind the Second Amendment was that most
citizens would
potentially *be* soldiers, although not regular troops in
a standing
army. Those who disagree with the premise should argue
for repeal.
Once we start repealing the Bill of Rights I'll bet
there's quite a bit
of it that will be found dispensable.


The second amendment is a terrible piece of writing. My 10th
grade English teacher would have had red marks all over it,
and not just for style. Obviously, the very meaning was so
unclear that serious, intelligent and even impartial readers
have disagreed over interpretation for hundreds of years.

So don't go "slippery slope" on me. It's an amendment, and
it can be amended. Other aspects of the constitution have
been amended and even repealed. The 18th amendment seemed
like a good idea. When the effects became apparent, the 21st
corrected the situation.

We're now seeing the modern results of a terribly written
2nd amendment: a gun murder rate that eclipses any other
modern industrialized country. We should amend that
amendment, and put specific, rational limits on gun nuts.

As I said, if people want to discuss specific time limits
for
subsequent rounds, I'm happy to do so. I'm sure Joerg's
life has been
saved only by his ability to get a second round into a
mountain lion
really quickly. But I bet fast firepower causes far more
deaths than
it prevents.

BTW, I'm sure I can fire at least two shots per second
with the gun in
my basement. I haven't tried, because all my practice has
been for
accuracy, not speed. But a five second wait would never have
inconvenienced me.


So how do you propose to enforce the five second limit?
It would seem
to outlaw essentially all repeating firearms, and almost
all breech
loading single shot firearms. Most muzzle loaders would
be ok, as long
as some clever ATF guy couldn't figure out how to reload
in four seconds.


Again: If you don't like five seconds, we can discuss
specific firing rates.

But how to enforce? First, outlaw and buy back
purpose-designed rapid-fire guns something like what
Australia did. Second, I'd be shocked if it were impossible
to design a mechanical or electronic damper system to limit
fire rates.


Reading the legislative history of it, besides The
Federalist (Hamilton, Madison & Jay) the intent, that the
nation would do well to be armed, to a man, is clear. As I
wrote recently, the track record of unarmed populations /in
extremis/ is horrific, both from tyranny and invasion. That
fact was well noted by the various Founders.

Your confusion about this centers, I think, on the lack of
specificity about sport shooting, hunting or applying lead
poisoning to a criminal intruder. None of it is in the text
because those are all irrelevant to the principle of a free
nation made up of free men with essential individual rights.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can Women Build Big Muscles? Why Women Cant Build Big Muscles Easily [email protected] UK 0 February 16th 08 10:41 PM
Anyone looking to build a bc? Free hazard hub with a Stockton build! Evan Byrne Unicycling 5 September 14th 06 09:59 AM
Anyone looking to build a bc? Free hazard hub with a Stockton build! Evan Byrne Unicycling 0 August 25th 06 11:05 PM
Disc Wheel Build Build Suggestions osobailo Techniques 2 October 5th 04 01:55 PM
? - To build or not to build -- a bike - ? Andrew Short Techniques 16 August 4th 03 04:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.